All language subtitles for 1 - War Crimes (1).

- You're gonna be all right, mate.
- They're in there! Others.

They're in there! Others.

Clear! Clear!

Clear!

This one's still
alive. Get a medic!

In this country, although we pride
ourselves on our freedom of speech,

it is not an enshrined right.

Now, Shelby Brookes
was correctly convicted

for stirring up hatred against
persons on religious grounds,

contrary to the Public
Order Act 1986, Section 29,

as inserted by the Racial
and Religious Hatred Act 2006.

The evidence
presented at this trial

clearly demonstrates that he
intended to stir up such hatred.

And in one particularly
offensive passage, and I quote,

"Islam is a backward religion.

"It's highly dangerous
and intolerant.

"Everyone knows it, but
we're becoming a state

"where ordinary British people
are scared to take action..."

"like proper citizens." Unquote.

Now, these words
may seem harmless,

but spoken at the end
of a rally in Bradford,

they were deliberately
provocative

and led to rioting.

I'm Sir Ian Rochester,
Permanent Secretary of the DCA.

Thanks.

Now, I ask you to give proper
weight to the statutory protections,

as inserted by 29j of the Act.

This guarantees that
none of the provisions

to which Sir Alan has
directed Your Lordships

can ever be interpreted in such a
way as to prohibit or restrict discussion,

criticism, ridicule or even
abuse of particular religions

or the beliefs of
their adherents.

Attacking an individual,
that is a different matter.

Shelby Brookes didn't do that.

He has a protected right,
like every other person,

to challenge or condemn
any belief system or religion.

Despite legislation put in place to
protect his right to criticise ideas,

the police chose to be
provocative in arresting him.

So, unless and until we
proscribe Mr Brookes's party,

we must defend
to our dying breath

his right to speak
freely, within the law,

regardless of who that offends.

Thank you, Mrs Mills.

Would you defend your client's
right to deny the Holocaust?

He made such a
statement on one occasion.

As offensive as that idea is, the
law must defend his right to express it.

- The alternative is dictatorship.
- Hmm.

We shall adjourn to
consider our judgment.

All rise.

Good morning?

Well, I should feel more sanguine
about it if Deed wasn't on the bench.

- Did you see the mob outside?
- And why the police allow it...

Oh, yes, the Cabinet's
braced for trouble if this, uh,

if this appeal succeeds.

Deed won't let
that influence him.

I thought he'd been
sent off to The Hague.

There's no work for him there.
He's at liberty to sit back here.

Mrs Mills, your feelings?

I think it's shameful the
Government ever brought this case.

What else could I expect

from that radical bunch of loonies
that she's joined forces with?

His opinions are odious,

but in a democratic society, is it
really necessary that we zip his mouth?

Well, Article 10 of the European
Convention forbids us to do so.

Not entirely. It restricts
his rights sometimes,

for public safety and for the
protection of the rights of others.

Brookes is a racist.

He hates blacks and
Muslims and gays and Jews,

and people with six
toes, for all I know.

And despite the
location of his speech,

Brookes was careful to
attack only the religion.

Can we permit a religious
creed to be immune from criticism

simply because its adherents

claim that that
criticism is insulting?

We have to try to get behind
the words, Joe, to intent.

Wasn't Islam being
held up in hatred?

There is European jurisprudence,
Jersild versus Denmark, 1955.

A journalist was convicted of
aiding and abetting racial hatred.

He had interviewed
three neo-Nazis.

On overturning the conviction,

the court ruled that it would
seriously hamper press freedom

were he prevented from
disseminating such views.

This still ignores Article 17.

We can't interpret any right
in the Convention in any way

that allows Brookes to destroy
any of its other rights and freedoms.

Brookes was following the law

by not attacking the security of
the Muslims under the Convention,

only their ideas.

Ideas lead to physical
reality, Joe, violence.

I can't believe that Brookes
wasn't aware of that.

There's very little we can do about
it under the law as it now stands.

In a full democracy, ideas alone
don't undermine anyone's peace, John.

- Do we live in a full democracy?
- That's why we need these protections.

How would you feel if
your core religious beliefs

were held up for ridicule

by somebody claiming to
represent the white majority?

I'd want the blasphemer stoned.

We'll all be stoned if we overturn
the lower court and release him.

Now, there's a dilemma.

Should we uphold a wrong
judgment for fear of reprisals?

I'm still not convinced
it was wrong.

Then we must each take our own
counsel and meet at a later date. 14 days?

Eleven people shot in Basra

is hardly huge in relation to the
number of people killed there, Ian.

These were civilians killed by a British
soldier. Four of them were children.

- Well, three were terrorists, surely?
- That was the Army's original position.

The Iraqi government
now claims none were.

- Huh! Well, how reliable is that?
- They want the case heard in Iraq.

Well, the PM might go along
with it as part of our exit strategy.

Pity poor Private Clark.

Have we got an exit strategy?

- The Army wants a court-martial.
- Well, they won't get it.

Not even with the Secretary of State
for Defence arguing for it in Cabinet.

Taxi!

Er... Garrick Club, please.

Sir Joseph.

- Did you recognise the woman, Joe?
- Well, do you think it's serious?

The Home Office can't treat it
as anything other than serious.

But I barely saw the woman.

You'll all have to have
round-the-clock protection.

As long as she's got good legs!

Oh, yeah!

What are Sir John's routines?

I keep his diary quite
secure. You'll have to ask him.

This is not helping your boss.

I'm beginning to think this is a move
by the Lord Chancellor to restrict me.

We can't take any risks.
We're taking it very seriously, sir.

It was Sir Joe Channing
that was threatened.

Yeah, I've been
assigned to your staff.

I don't think Mrs
Cooper needs any help.

I'm sure you wouldn't like it

if Mrs Cooper opened
a letter addressed to you

and it exploded.

I wouldn't like it any
better if it happened to you.

All the while you're here,
you must report to Mrs Cooper.

- Sir, I really think...
- Yes, yes, all right.

I'm sure you're very good at
what you do, but so is Mrs Cooper.

- Is he always so difficult?
- Huh!

- I will need to know his movements.
- I wish I knew them myself.

- He has lots of girlfriends.
- I wouldn't know about that.

Is he sleeping with
the barrister, Mrs Mills?

- Is that anyone's business but his?
- He could be at risk.

Look, we have to ensure
his safety without his knowing.

He's in court on another
appeal this afternoon.

Is it likely to attract a
lot of the general public?

The status of electronic
bank drafts in the law of theft?

Yeah, they'll be
queuing down the Strand!

Afterwards, he's meeting Mrs
Mills. They're fencing at the gym.

I don't care how
stable a trial in Baghdad

makes those rag-heads look!

Sounds like the Secretary of
State for Defence is adamant, Percy.

Ready to punch someone, I'd say.

Our boys deserve better!

The proper course is for the
Army to court-martial Private Clark.

The Iraqis won't budge.

We wrest the country
back from a madman.

- Now they imagine they're a democracy.
- More people voted in Iraq than here.

Well, you know the
PM's view, Martin.

It'll help stabilise Iraq if the courts
are at least seen to be functioning.

But the troops on the ground will feel
they have no protection until we exit.

The longer we delay the
functioning of their administration,

the longer that exit
will take, General.

A trial in Iraq would
be seen as a sellout.

Even more of our
lads would desert.

No one's selling them out, Andy.

I'll fight this one in
public if necessary.

See what the electorate thinks.

The police tramped
through my apartment today.

Checking on security
in case you visit me.

That was a bit presumptuous.

I think it provided
them with an excuse.

Because of my relationship
with Radical Lawyers for Justice.

The police have become an arm of
government. Nobody seems to care.

Well, you'd better start caring.

You might need to rely
on them for your security.

I can't take that seriously.

They did ask about us.

What did you tell 'em?

- That I can never be with you.
- Why?

What's that all about?
I thought life was good.

Yeah. It is for you, John.

It's like you can't be
touched on any level.

Is this why you've hooked
up with Radical Lawyers?

No, that was a good offer.

In legal circles, it's self-immolation.
You could have been a judge.

Yeah, and then I'd be unassailable
too, and I don't want that.

Jo, come on. Why are you
doing this? Don't do this.

Because I don't like the
way I'm living my life, John.

- I want to change it.
- Is this helping?

Excuse me, but who
are you to question that?

If you get close to this
lot, you'll never be a judge.

What difference could I
make on the bench, anyway?

Mm-hm? And if you're
stopped from being a barrister?

Has anyone threatened that?

This new set is
totally lopsided,

totally political.

They ignore all
principles of objectivity.

No, they believe in
what they're doing

and that is more than can
be said for most lawyers.

Don't you use them as
a stick to beat me with.

We've got too
much history for that.

And don't you
manipulate me, John.

I can't talk to you any
more. I can't reach you.

You just... You just take a
position and you don't shift.

A bomb is probably
all that'll move you.

It is an outrage.

The British are
denying us justice

by refusing to allow us
to try Private Clark in Iraq.

Instead, they are
insisting on The Hague.

Yeah, I've been
following the public row

between the British PM
and the Army Minister.

This soldier must
be tried on Iraqi soil.

That might be risky, Mr Ambassador.
It suggests you want a lynch party.

We want only justice.

But The Hague is the perfect
venue. Politically sophisticated.

Yes, but can the International
Criminal Court deliver justice for Iraq?

I will prosecute personally.
Let's talk to Claude Previn.

It is still a trial in
English for the English.

Given France's consistent opposition
to the war, you need have no concerns.

Iraq must make a formal request
under the Statute of Rome, Article 13.

We would like this case,
monsieur. N'est-ce pas, Marie?

We would make sure the
soldier was found guilty.

The consequences
of their illegal war.

- Claude?
- If only we could fight that battle.

I will talk to our
Justice Minister.

As far as the Army's concerned,

the International Criminal
Court is little better than Iraq.

Hardly, General.

The soldiers on the ground
won't notice any difference.

And how many more
desertions can we sustain?

Three thousand to date.

It's out of our hands now.

We are official signatories
to the ICC, after all.

Well, some means must
be found to block this.

If we don't, soldiers who don't
go AWOL will avoid taking action

for fear of being made
a political football.

This is part of
our exit strategy.

What exit strategy?

Well, I, er, I suppose we must
get out sooner rather than later.

Then we must pre-empt a trial at
The Hague and try him by court-martial.

Well, that would cause
an international incident.

There might be
a simpler solution.

Private Clark's mental state
could mean that he's unfit for trial.

- Now, that's a possibility, General.
- Not much honour there.

Anyway, our trick
cyclists say he's sound.

Right. I'll report back.

Gentlemen.

How much of a sacrificial
lamb is this soldier, Alan?

Well, I suppose we could
withdraw HMG's consent to the trial,

although the PM's inclined
to take it on the chin.

It's Private Clark in
the dock, not HMG.

Well, it puts clear blue
water between us and the US.

It shows that the British don't
shy away from international justice.

If Deed was on the panel,
swimming our way, so much the better.

How to get Deed to swim
other than against the tide, Alan?

Your name's been put
forward for the trial panel.

The Government feels
it should be represented.

I don't represent
the Government, Ian.

His Honour Judge Previn
is resisting your inclusion.

He hasn't got much
trial experience.

Do any of them? They'll make
up the deficiency by time-wasting.

Oh, no, that means
a year or more, Ian.

I'd really rather one of
the other judges did it.

I think there's a move afoot

to sacrifice Private
Clark to our exit strategy.

Which is what, exactly?

I'm not privy to it, John,

but I think it involves
an English judge

helping to deliver justice by
finding Private Clark guilty.

And if he's not guilty?

It's a small price
to pay, it's felt,

for saving the lives of
British soldiers in Iraq.

John, please go before I
say something I might regret.

Just go.

Go!

I can't do the case in The
Hague. Deed's on the trial panel.

- That's madness, Jo.
- We had a relationship, Simon.

Well, then, play him
to our advantage.

Think about it, Jo. It's like a
gift to Dave Clark's defence.

- Goedendag.
- Goedendag.

I'm Dr Pavely. I
have a reservation.

Ah, yes, Dr Pavely.

If you could fill
out the registration.

Shall I unpack, Judge?

- This trial's reckoned to last a year.
- Are we staying?

Well, from what I've read so
far, we could do it in three weeks.

I'll unpack, then.

Marie Madsen, chief
prosecutor of the ICC.

Excuse me! Mr
Justice Deed is busy!

- She's here now, Coop.
- So much for security!

I don't think there's much
danger in Ms Madsen.

You look older than your
reputation led me to expect.

Touché.

- Do you fence?
- Games are a waste of time.

It's mental
discipline, like yoga.

- You do yoga?
- No, I'm too lazy.

Have you read the papers
in the Private Clark case?

There is a lot to read.

Well, we have a drink
later and talk, yes?

Is it quite proper? The chief
prosecutor and one of the trial judges?

Our joint concern is the
achievement of justice.

I thought that you presented
your evidence, the defence theirs

and the judges decide.

Article 54 says my
task is to investigate

both incriminating and
exonerating circumstances.

You should not hear
this case, Sir John.

Until later.

She's a forceful lady.

Bit of a madam, if you ask me.

She has a reputation for
getting drunk with the trial judges.

Oh, I'm a police officer.

Oh.

So, is, er...

is your policewoman a lesbian?

You have a reputation for
getting too close to the trial judges.

You have a reputation
for interfering.

Isn't that how
European courts work?

The evidence points
to Private Clark's guilt.

His defence team would say
it points to lack of legal guilt.

- You're familiar with his defence team?
- My statement didn't imply that.

Do you have sex with Mrs Mills?

You get right to it, don't you?

Ah, you don't deny it.

Am I being cross-examined?

- Oh, how can she defend this man?
- I'm not running the defence.

- It's for us to interrogate him.
- With his defence team.

When I heard you might be on this
panel, I was sure I wouldn't like you.

Hmm. But now you've
changed your mind, have you?

You are frank, forthright.

I can't stand men who
don't know what they want,

nor how to get it when they do.

Would you like to make love?

I think that would be very nice.

Oh, this is good.

But at this point I must reveal I'm
from the News Of The World and leave.

This is a joke?

Yeah, it's... it's more
a cultural difference.

- I thought you knew what you wanted.
- Yes, I'll regret it all my life.

Yes...

I think you will.

Sir John?

Nick of time.

Are they going to find
me guilty, Mrs Mills?

- Are they?
- We think our case is good.

Dave, I want you to bring
your mother into court.

No. She's not well. She can't.

They'll hear how you helped look
after her when you were growing up.

They'll see her
in her wheelchair.

I don't want her to hear
about those children.

No, it... It'll kill her.

Please don't make her come here.

I wish I could do that.

Excuse me?

Do you know the fable of
the hare and the tortoise?

I'm sure it ends badly.

- Well...
- She's a guest at our hotel.

They must be giving
her different food.

Hi.

I wanted this to be informal.

Not country to country.

You require me to step
down. Marie Madsen told me.

The Iraqis do not wish an
English judge to be on the panel.

No, of course not.

This is a most prominent case,
monsieur. We must accommodate them.

Well, because of its
prominence, we shouldn't.

How could the British continue in
Iraq if we gave in to their demands?

The British shouldn't be
in Iraq. Nor the Americans.

The UK has a commitment,
to help stabilise things.

Can they ever be stable
under an occupying power?

- Will it ever be stable without?
- With anyone else's help, yes.

- Is France helping?
- Naturellement.

Working behind the scenes.

Naturellement.

You'll find my trial experience
helpful in moving things along.

These cases take time, monsieur.

Too much time is being wasted.
We could do this in three weeks.

I am the trial
president, monsieur.

Mrs Mills, Judge.

- Coop...
- I know, Judge, some tea.

No, I haven't come for tea.

You're on the panel
hearing Private Clark.

Somebody doesn't want me to be.

Good. Neither do I. I
want you to step down.

Britain has to be represented.

Since when have you become
the Government's hack?

That's not the issue.

Nor will I allow your
new chums to make it so.

It's our Government
who should be on trial.

Taking that line will
damage your career.

My career's just fine,
thank you very much.

I'd sooner not be part
of the Establishment.

Like it or not, Jo, you are.

I'm increasingly
ashamed to be British.

Joining Jumping Jack Flash's
set's not going to help, is it?

I want you to think
about what I've asked.

Yeah, yeah. What
defence are you running?

Going after the Government
will not help your client.

Claude says you
refuse to step down!

- I'm sorry, Sir John.
- It's all right, she's harmless.

Pah! Islamic terrorists are
harmless compared to me!

It's fine. Marie Madsen, Jo Mills.
Prosecution, meet the defence.

Ah, Mrs Mills. I know about you.

You will step down from this
case, Sir John. It's essential.

- Persuade him, Mrs Mills.
- I don't have that sort of influence.

Then leave. I'll talk to him.

In England, the prosecution and the
defence see the trial judge together.

This is The Hague, Mrs Mills.

Mmm. Where it seems
you need little law to get by.

What did she mean?

No matter how differently
you do things here,

I won't see you
without the defence.

- Because of your relationship?
- I don't answer to you, Marie.

You must withdraw when you
have a relationship with an advocate.

You have a
relationship with Previn.

You're in and out of his
room like a fiddler's elbow.

This is not an affair.

What, you simply get
drunk in his room, do you?

- Where did you hear that?
- Maybe you should step down.

Never! I'm going to send
this British soldier to prison.

This is getting to be a habit,
the hare passing the tortoise.

- The tortoise wins in the end.
- Only in the fable.

Will you be here after
your AIDS conference?

No, I have to go to Switzerland.

Where you run up
and down mountains?

How about a more leisurely
bike ride around the city?

- I have to do some work.
- Oh, yeah.

That'll be our
epitaph, won't it?

Putting life on hold while
we wait for work to stop.

Yes. It's a modern disease.

How about that bike ride, then?

No, I really do have to work.

How about dinner, then?

You really are very
persistent, aren't you, Mr Deed?

Well...

I do try.

La cour se lève.

Cour Pénale Internationale.
L'audience est ouverte à dix heures.

Good day to everyone.

I would like to start

by asking the defendant
about conditions in detention.

He has any complaints? He
is receiving the correct food?

He is, Your Honour.
No complaints.

Can we read out the
charge to the accused?

May it please Your
Honour, before this is read,

I must challenge the propriety of
Sir John Deed to sit on this panel.

On what grounds?

He has a relationship
with the defence lead.

You are presenting evidence?

I would like to examine His Honour
Sir John and Mrs Mills on this point.

Well, I would suggest my chambers, but
there is always a need for transparency.

Not to proceed will raise the
spectre of bias in this important case.

Sir John and Madame Mills,
would you submit to examination?

This is wholly prejudicial.

This trial cannot
be subject to bias.

Madame, do you have any
relationship with any judge on this panel?

I know Mr Justice Deed. I
fenced with him only last week.

Your Honour, this
is to favour her client.

- Does Sir John wish to comment?
- Not in open court, no.

Under our constitution,
we demand transparency.

Is there a relationship
likely to prejudice this trial?

No, there is not.

Then we should be
mindful of Article 67,

which guarantees the defendant
the right to choose his own counsel.

May we continue
reading out the charge?

Would Your Honour
hear a further argument?

Regrettably, no. I have ruled.

David Patrick Clark,

you are charged with the
war crime of wilful killing,

contrary to the Rome
Statute, Article 8, 2,

that on November
11th last at around 5pm,

in the context of and associated
with an international armed conflict,

you did cause the death by shooting
of Asheer Al-Abul, aged four years,

a person you knew
to be protected

under the provisions of the Geneva
Convention of 12th August 1949.

You are further charged
with the war crimes of murder,

contrary to Article 8, 2,

in that you did murder civilians
taking no part in the hostilities.

Namely, Maliki
Al-Jamil, aged seven,

Eisa Ali Nasser, nine years old,

Ziyal Ataie,

Amira Hakim,

Hussein Husseini,

Sadia Al-Rahman,

Mohammed Rufi,

Qasim Al-Assam,

Murtaza Nazah.

How do you plead,
guilty or not guilty?

Not guilty, sir.

Sit down, monsieur.

Madame Mills.

In support of Private Clark's
defence, we have sought

hospital records from
the Iraqi authority.

These relate to the man
that Private Clark rescued

and who died in his arms.

These records
aren't forthcoming.

You know they exist?

We believe so, based on
evidence from the defendant.

You did request them?

We did. Not having them
is prejudicial to the defence.

But you knew the trial date.

The prosecution could use its
considerable powers under Article 54

to investigate with
the Iraq authority

just why these papers
aren't forthcoming.

The man is a fiction.

There are no papers.

I would like you to investigate
further and report back.

Well, this is a matter
for the defence.

I'm not here to scout for
data to exonerate the accused.

Your statutory obligation
is to establish the truth.

I want those hospital papers.

I'm sure Mrs Mills will
provide the details for you.

- I'm obliged, My Lord.
- Wrong form, Mrs Mills.

Your Honour.

Can we proceed?

I'd first like to enquire about
the defendant's mental state.

Er... no. The prisoner
was declared fit for trial.

Yes, I read the Army
psychiatrists' reports.

Are there any
independent reports?

How many psychies must a man have to
see before they can call him quite sane?

British Army psychiatrists.

- No less qualified.
- The prosecution has a point.

Yes, they work for the Army.

Work cultures affect the minds
of us all, even psychiatrists.

The whole of the British
Army is mad, being in Iraq.

Mrs Mills, was the defendant
examined by any other psychiatrists?

He was independently
examined four times.

The reports are on
your screens at tab ten.

Will you be calling
these psychiatrists?

Er... I will not.

In which case, I'd like to
examine the Army psychiatrists.

For what purpose?

I want to be satisfied as to the
mental state of the defendant.

It isn't disputed by anyone.

I find myself agreeing with
the defence. On this point.

- We have no other option.
- No, obviously.

We will withdraw to discuss.

La cour se lève.

He's always so infuriating?

You ain't seen nothing.

Relax, Dave.

- Would you wait outside?
- He's got to be guarded, miss.

Yes. But outside.

No, miss. He needs
guarding at all times.

Just leave. We need to
speak to Private Clark alone.

- It's orders.
- No, get out!

Simon, tell the judges the
guards are preventing our client

from mounting his
defence. We can't continue.

Fine.

I'll tell them.

You want to punch these
guys, they're so stupid!

They're quite friendly, really.

Regardless, your defence is
yours until it's given in court.

I'm not mad, Mrs Mills.

Dave, this is a ploy
to stop us going to trial.

- I don't think John...
- He is a British judge, Jo,

working for the Government.

- Why is he asking if I'm mad?
- To try to stop the trial.

He's trying to be fair to you.

They were terrorists I
shot. I know they were.

But unfortunately, Dave, your
only witness died in your arms.

No one believes he existed.

- He was never found.
- He was there.

Someone's hiding
those hospital records.

Can you stop the
psychiatrists saying I'm mad?

- Is that what they're going to say?
- I'm not mad, Mrs Mills.

I'm not.

Does psychiatry not obscure
the waters of criminal trials?

- Is this what you wish, monsieur?
- You know differently.

I can order this not to happen.

Then we'll fall out publicly.

Your government is in
a most unhappy place.

The Iraqis want this atrocity condemned
and your army is in need of protection.

Madness is a convenient escape.

The psychiatrists may
confirm he's not mad.

My concern is to be convinced

that Clark was in control of his
mind when he shot those people.

Otherwise, the
trial cannot proceed.

This could mean the British
Army escaping without punishment.

Is this Judge Deed's intention?

I can think of no other reason
to examine the psychiatrists.

Deed wanted to shorten
the trial time, not extend it.

Then I will ask our
Foreign Minister

to complain to the United
Nations about Judge Deed.

Perhaps we can remove him.

We can hope.

- Is Deed helping us, Alan?
- For once, he appears to be.

He would help us by denying
Mrs Mills and her cronies

their international platform.

We plan to separate Mrs
Mills from her loony friends...

and undermine their case.

That'll delay things.

I had no idea he'd try
to shorten the trial time.

Your medics could help,

if the Army were to
reconsider its position

on Private Clark's mental state.

Yes, and how would that
help the situation in Basra?

A speedy resolution
will benefit everyone.

Yes, I suppose.

Our boys are
having a difficult time.

But your way so
frequently prevails, Marie.

This is such an important
trial for you, Claude.

We must not allow
ourselves to be embarrassed.

Monsieur Deed is
right to seek records

that may have come detached
from that dead witness.

How? Iraq is in chaos, Claude,
the result of invading forces.

Then he will insist
on the psychiatrists.

Claude.

There is, um...

something I must
tell you about Deed.

It's messy.

Then you'd better
come to my chambers.

Your taxi is waiting, Doctor.

Can you give this to Sir
John Deed for me, please?

- Thank you.
- Thank you.

Answer me, monsieur. Are you still
sexually pressuring Marie Madsen?

Oh, please!

- Monsieur?
- This is all nonsense.

You find women troublesome, no?

But I love them!

- You have such a reputation.
- Evidence, Claude.

Marie is very beautiful, no?

She should try using a little
less sex and a little more law.

I will examine
those psychiatrists.

In any dangerous situation, the
normal response is fight or flight.

This is what
adrenaline does for us.

In soldiers, the urge
to flee is suppressed,

both by training and
by peer-group pressure.

- Soldiers are not normal?
- If you accept the norm as

not unquestioningly
submitting to discipline

or subjecting oneself to danger.

Does Private Clark need
to subject himself to danger?

That tendency exists
in most soldiers.

Private Clark comes from a
very protected background.

His mother is an invalid

and was confined to a
wheelchair soon after his birth.

His older sisters are her carers

and brought up Private Clark
after his father deserted the family.

He has a greater need
for danger than most.

Does that predispose him to
a low threshold of self-control?

In my opinion, yes.

In your opinion, was he
beyond reasonable self-control

at the time of the shooting?

On re-examining the hours
of interviews, I'd say he was.

Thank you.

Hi. 312, please.

Thank you.

- Dr Pavely left this for you, sir.
- Thanks.

- Is she coming back?
- She's kept her room on.

See if you can get Dr
Pavely's number, will you?

La cour se lève.

Madame Mills.

In your original opinion, along with
that of Doctors Denman and Smith,

you thought he was "reasoning
and therefore responsible".

Madame, you appear to be
working against your client.

No, these are his instructions.

He won't accept he was in shock
and therefore not responsible.

When the Government puts
a young soldier in the position

that Private Clark was put in,

even with all his training, he is still
subject to human error in extremis.

He found himself in the most
desperate, terrifying situation,

with only a fraction of
a second to respond.

He believes that in killing terrorists as
he did, he exercised proper judgment.

His colonel agreed
with that, initially.

I have a copy of
Colonel Roth's report.

How was this
obtained, Mrs Mills?

It was sent to me anonymously
from Brigade Headquarters.

- The sender is unknown?
- Regrettably.

Perhaps the prosecution can use
its considerable investigatory powers

to identify the sender.

Resume, Madame Mills.

Dr Froad, are psychiatric disorders
prevalent in soldiers serving in Iraq?

They appear wherever
soldiers wage war.

- Particularly so in Iraq?
- There are stress problems.

Isn't it true that out of a
force of approximately 8,000,

over 1,500 have been sent home
suffering psychiatric disorders?

There is a lot of stress.

Is that a yes or a no, Doctor?

Yes.

Was Private Clark sent home
suffering with a psychiatric condition

two months before the shootings,

but then declared fit
for active service again?

Mistakenly, in my opinion.

But your original opinion
when you saw him back in Iraq

had been that he was
fit for active service.

It was, but on reflection,
I was wrong in that.

Has pressure been put on
you to change that opinion?

- We did a longer examination.
- I see.

- Doctor.
- Are you now saying

that Private Clark
was so stressed

that he wasn't responsible
for these killings?

I am saying his actions were simply
a reflex. We say he was "automated".

- No controlling mind.
- No!

No, that's not right.

Sir Joseph Channing's
clerk rang, Judge.

She's looking for a date to
review the Shelby Brookes appeal.

What's our timetable here?

Well, Judge Previn has to go to
Paris tomorrow, so tomorrow's possible.

OK, fine.

I somehow feel we're letting
Private Clark down, badly.

He's very unhappy
about those psychiatrists.

A guilty plea would be
more honourable, sir.

Yeah.

I can't go along with
quashing this conviction.

The man was at a political rally
being deliberately provocative.

Urging people to "take
action like proper citizens"?

It was rather vague.

Brookes was careful to
avoid concrete threats,

while exercising his
democratic right to argue

that Mohammed was
backward and primitive.

Who's to say he's not right,

when one considers how Islam
treats women and homosexuals?

That's hardly relevant, anyway,

as much the same could be said
of Roman Catholicism or Judaism.

The mens rea in this
offence is intention.

A conviction must
be based on proof

that Brookes deliberately intended
to incite hatred against religion.

Yes, intention is very
difficult to define in law,

but I'm of the view that
that was his intention.

No. That's where the
original trial judge went wrong.

He failed to allow the
jury to consider this

as something primarily
subjective, as the law requires.

Not that I blame him.

I mean, the legislation is the
usual bugger's muddle nowadays.

I'm with Monty on this. No one
was being attacked in the speech

or reviled for being something
he cannot change, like his race.

But criticism of his ideas
and religion must be allowed,

even if those criticisms
are harsh and aggressive.

I mean, we can lampoon Roman
Catholicism without fear of death threats.

No, Section 29 of the
Public Order Act makes clear

that it was not intended to
prohibit religious criticism

or even the expression
of abuse or insults.

The conclusion's the same, Joe.

Think about it, John.

All rise.

It is the view of this court

that the judge at Mr Brookes's
original trial failed to direct the jury

to the protections provided in
Section 29 of the Public Order Act.

The wording is very clear.

It specifically allows
the expression of,

and let me quote
ipsissima verba,

"dislike, ridicule, insult or
abuse of particular religions,

"or the beliefs or
practices of the adherents."

Now, there is, in a free society,
an important difference between that

and the intentional stirring-up
of hatred against people

on religious grounds.

That difference was not made
clear adequately to the jury.

Therefore, we
quash the conviction.

The appellant may be released.

We shall rise whilst the
public gallery is cleared.

Isn't there a London
contact for Dr Pavely?

- Only the number the hotel has.
- It's never switched on.

I could check some
other sources, Sir John.

- What happened yesterday?
- Last-minute changes.

- I had no contact.
- No.

- Do you have them?
- Of course.

So small, it only
kills the target.

They'll trip as soon
as the box is opened.

Fat old men love chocolate.

You've made excellent
contact with our enemy.

I was happy to do this for you.

Your impeccable credentials
weren't questioned.

He seems such a reasonable man.

That's how treacherously
deceptive Western justice is.

Hmm.

They smile while
they kill your brothers.

- Has something happened to my brothers?
- No.

Contact has been made.

They are training in
Afghanistan with the mujaheddin.

Their cause is just, sister. But
we can bring them back for you.

First, there's something
else we require of you.

Hello, Dave.

How are you?

- Margaret, how did you get...?
- As part of your defence team.

Mark wanted to have a word.

- They treating you right?
- Can't complain.

No, you were never a complainer.

We all admired you for that.

How's things with the rags?

Bad and getting worse.

The plan by the British Army
and the British Government

is to undermine Private Clark's
defence and so deny him his day in court.

They are trying to recategorise
Private Clark as mad

so he can't stand trial.

It is members of the British Government
who should be tried as war criminals,

not Private Clark.

Our Government should be on
trial for persisting in this illegal war.

- A war which, I might add...
- What is going on?

How will this help our client?
We'll be reported to the Bar Council.

It cuts the ground
from under them, Jo.

Nor the international
community as a whole.

Do you realise what
your cronies have done?

I think it was justified.

Are you as warped as they are?

You're the leader, you're
going to have to take the rap.

You will get reported
to the Bar Council.

It's just another way for the
Government to put pressure on us.

Listen to you! You're even
beginning to sound like them.

- You're out to stop this trial.
- No.

Defect of mind.

If he went not guilty on failure
to appreciate unlawfulness,

he might have walked.

He was sound when
he was sent back to Iraq.

- I was just trying to help you.
- We want our day in court.

Are you out to score political
points or help your client?

That is pretty cheap.

You may not like me joining this set,
but we never compromise our clients.

Their interests and your
client's don't coincide.

They coincide exactly.

Private Clark was sent to
do a job he was trained for.

He made a judgment call

that doesn't accord with the shifting
sands of the Government's war policy.

That does not make him guilty.

He emptied a whole magazine into a
group of civilians, including children.

- 30 bullets.
- Mmm-hmm. In four seconds.

Well, that's hardly a
split-second decision.

But children made objects of war
can kill as easily as their parents can.

No, that argument's unwinnable.

Well, it would be before a jury.

Defect of mind.

The court could request
you to enter that plea.

That would make my client a scapegoat
and get your employers off the hook.

The Government does not employ
me. Why would I support such a position?

Yes, John...

why would you?

- That seemed rather tense.
- Sorry, you can't...

No, it's all right, it's all right,
she's here now. Well, you're back.

Uh-huh.

I tried calling you. How
long are you back for?

Until I get the AIDS
conference organised.

We need the pharmaceutical
companies to donate more drugs.

Urgently, you know?

Yep. Better try blackmail.

Remembering to stay just
the right side of what's legal.

Oh, yes, where is that? Huh?

Well, we could have dinner
and work out precisely where.

Is that work...

or social?

It's whatever we decide it is.